US aims to overthrow all independent govts in the Middle East

The US is not “the cop of the world” and cannot “attack any country,” but it follows its key agenda of removing all independent governments in the Middle East, Richard Becker from ANSWER Coalition told RT.

The real aim of the US "is to remove all the independent
governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements
in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil
rich region,” Becker said.

US President Barack Obama on Saturday formally requested
Congressional authorization for military strikes on Syria in a
bid to prevent more chemical attacks.

“Syria has not threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such
a war would be a crime against peace,” Becker acknowledged.

RT: We are waiting to find out what Congress decides -
but do you think Obama really would go it alone?

Richard Becker: Well he could go it alone. What we’ve seen
is that there is an opposition around the world and in the US,
and yesterday in the US there were demonstrations in dozens of
cities opposing a new war against Syria. And that opposition is
what forced Obama to pull back and say that he was going to
Congress. It wasn’t a matter of change of sentiment or that he
started to rethink things, except on the basis that there was
such a great opposition and it presents great dangers. If they
launch a war, it would not only be reckless, it would also be
lawless and would have unforeseeable consequences as all wars do
before they begin.

RT: No matter what Congress says shouldn't the
President be more concerned about what the American people
think?

RB: I think that they are going to try in the next week is
to wage a campaign using the corporate media in the US which
really functions as the fourth branch of government in times of
crisis, particularly war crisis. They will try to convince the
people in the US that there is justification, but there is no
justification. First of all it defies logic that the Assad
government would have used chemical weapons at exactly the moment
they were winning and the UN inspectors were there. But secondly
if that had happened the US do not have the authority, it is not
the ‘cop of the world’, to attack any country. And Syria has not
threatened and cannot threaten the US. So such a war would be a
crime against peace.

RT: With Secretary of State Kerry saying the US has
proof - is Washington guilty of riding roughshod over the UN
inspectors who are working to determine IF there was indeed a
chemical attack?

RB: What the US is really convinced of is not the so much
the accuracy of their information as of their objective. Their
objective has been for a long time to remove, to overthrow the
government in Syria. The day after the fall of Baghdad on April
10 2003, a State Department official John Bolton said that Syria,
Iran and North Korea should learn the lesson of Iraq. What is it,
if not a terrorist threat? But it also indicates to us what the
real aim is, and that is to remove all the independent
governments in the Middle East, to destroy the popular movements
in order to secure the domination of this key strategic and oil
rich region.

RT: Iraq's just voted against intervention at the Arab
League - is this not ironic given the fact the country has
supposedly been liberated by US forces?

RB: We can see the tragedy of Iraq. The horrible tragedy
that everyday people are dying there: over a million people were
killed, five million were made refugees, and over a quarter of
the population was killed, wounded or made refugees by the US
intervention and occupation. I can certainly understand why any
government in Iraq that was loyal to the interest of the Iraqi
people would want to vote ‘no’ in another such intervention.